In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Legislation, Litigation, Standards, Regulations, Policies, and Other Oughts • 167 sistent in upholding the authority of schools to set their own academic standards (University of Kentucky), to refuse to waive requirements when appropriate accommodations have been provided (Barnett v. Fairfax County School Board, Anderson v. Banks, Doherty v. Southern College of Optometry, University of Baltimore [MDJ), and to require students to make satisfactory academic progress toward a degree. The different positions taken by the courts in applying a more limiting reasonable accommodation standard, and the DOE's rejection of the standard in preference to providing appropriate free public education for all students, place school administrators and teachers in a challenging situation. The result is that school personnel can limit their actions in accommodating students with disabilities particularly when they require fundamental or substantial alteration of program requirements and standards , placing an undue burden on the school system or its educational standards; however, school personnel must also explore accommodations that can be made without substantially affecting program quality or outcome but allow persons with disabilities to fully participate. In other words, school personnel can no longer claim that "this is our program and this is the way in which we have done it in the past." School personnel must exercise good judgment based on sound educational principles and professional judgment, including relevant disability specialists, in determining the appropriate course of action in accommodating program access. Furthermore, Donaldson (1994) found that introducing a unit on the history of treatment of persons with disabilities had a positive impact on the attitudes and awareness of a set of nondisabled students, suggesting that proactive efforts on the part of schools can help create an environment conducive to acceptance and accommodation. Much of the impact of the ADA is still unknown, but during debate on the Americans with Disabilities Act, organizations representing business interests and business leaders predicted an onslaught of litigation if the legislation was adopted. It is too early to tell whether the prediction was accurate, but relatively few ADA cases have been decided in federal courts. Several explanations can be advanced for this modest litigation experience. Reasons for the Lack of Litigation For litigation to occur consumers must first be educated about their rights. Second, the necessity of litigation must be determined and cases prepared. All of this work must take place before court cases can be filed. Since the passage of the ADA, employers may also be taking the law more seriously than they did under previous legislation. Employers, therefore, may be taking more actions necessary to accommodate persons with disabilities, thus, limiting court action. Because of past experience , business and industry may well be better prepared to address issues such as preemployment inquiries and the accommodations that are necessary for persons with disabilities to become productive employees. Another plausible reason for the relative lack of litigation may be that prelitigation negotiation is effective in settling disputes between potential and current employees and employers. Filing a complaint with the OCR or the EEOC can, in some instances, avoid legal action that ends in court. Yet another reason for limited court involvement in disputes may be the reticence of persons with disabilities to file complaints and lawsuits to address issues related to their employment. This reluctance may be due to the attention that legal action draws to them and that may follow them from employer to employer. Persons 168 • Terrel L. Rbodu and Roger G. Brown with disabilities generally do not want to be seen as malcontents or troublemakers. Applicants or employees with disabilities may also be reluctant to file complaints or engage in litigation because they fear retaliation by their employers. Many persons with disabilities feel that if an employer wants to rid him- or herself of an employee with a disability there are legal ways to accomplish that objective. Finally, most people with disabilities recognize that discrimination in the work place is very difficult to prove. The process of litigation can be very long, drawn-out, and expensive. Persons with disabilities who are employed are often grateful they have a job and they will do what they can do to avoid confrontations with their employers. Persons will often not complain when passed over for promotion, pay raises, or reassignment because they would rather hold on to what they have than have no job at all. Educational Employment under ADA Employment for people with disabilities is another area of concern that illustrates legislative efforts to broaden inclusion. Educational institutions, like businesses and industries...

Share